And that's not what "lossy" means, did you miss the dictionary definition I quoted?

EVERY recording format in existence (and playback hardware) is going to do the best it can to try and capture the live sound...but will inevitably fail. But that doesn't mean that every recording format is "lossy", it just means that every recording format is imperfect.

And for that matter, data is lost between a violin playing a note and those vibrations getting to your ear.

In a nutshell "lossy" doesn't mean "not as good as some other format". Nor does a format being lossy mean that it necessarily sounds worse than a particular lossless format. It's an actual word with an actual definition, and if you are going to ignore the meaning of the word and just use it to mean whatever you want, you will be saying something that is incorrect.

Why would I need a dictionary to explain what i've known for two decades?

My statement was

Quote:

The only thing lossless by any stretch is the analog waveform from instrument to your ears.

The "by any stretch" is there to refrence that even a live instrument playing music will suffer some sort of auditory deterioration.

I really don't engage in the "I don't like iTunes because it's lossy" hyperbole because most people that say that have very little grasp on audio. I'm no Bob Katz by I know many of the limitations of today's audio tech at a conversational level.

My mantra...let your ears decide.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.- SolipsismX

CDs aren't lossless, so I'm not sure why you expect more from your online music.

It depends on what you mean. As you weren't specific about what you mean, it's hard to comment on it. Some people think that digitization is lossy, but it's not lossy in the same context as a lossy codec.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halvri

Agreed, go listen to a DVD-Audio disc and see if you still think CDs are lossless.

Again, same as above. Resampling losses aren't the same as compression losses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halvri

They come from a loss-less sample and that's it. Compressing the file for CDs inherently causes loss. It does the same thing even at higher bitrates. Stop trying to justify your error and just move on. Physical media is dead one way or another so this entire argument is ultimately irrelevant.

If you're going to school people, why not try to use better terminology? Blatantly using the wrong terminology isn't helping you here. Making a CD bitstream from a master isn't compression, it is resampling. It's like the rescaling a photo in Photoshop, that's not compression or decompression, it is resampling. The compression is what happens when you're saving as JPG or similar type of codec for distribution. In determining whether a codec is lossy or not, you do a bit comparison of the data going into the compressor and compare it to the decompressed data, and the resampling doesn't figure into that determination. Anything else is out of context and an improper use of terminology for the context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_CA

Copyright is a civil, not criminal matter, which is why it's RIAA against person x, not State of Minnesota/Feds against person x and also why no one goes to jail.

I think copyright used to be just a civil matter, but criminal aspects have been gradually added to it over the years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

This is actually not true.

It's not Apple's fault (other than negotiating a bad deal), but it isn't due to P2P/Torrents either. The price is up because of the monopoly position of the labels and the sweetheart deal they get on copyright law.

All the labels act in unison as a cartel, which is just a monopoly by any other name (an oligarchy technically). Because they are allowed to set the prices artificially and because (with the help of various governments), nothing goes out of copyright anymore, they have carte blanche to do whatever the heck they want.

Monopolies in business are always bad for the consumer. It's always been that way, and it's why from time to time laws are passed that attempt to eliminate or control them. Monopolies stifle freedom and innovation and are inherently fascist in design.

Until something is purposely done to free up the market (government intervention), the consumer will be preyed upon. It really is as simple as that.

Copyright is a legal distribution monopoly on a particular work. That doesn't prevent others from making songs to compete against them. You don't have to buy or listen to major label music. BTW: the existence and length of copyright is a form of government intervention in itself, it looks like you're arguing for government to intervene on the results of government intervention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmurchison

Folks

The only thing lossless by any stretch is the analog waveform from instrument to your ears.

The CD format is lossy.

Even a bump to a 20-bit word length will yield differences you can hear. Increase the sampling rate and it'll cause differences you can hear. This is of course provided you have proper AD/DA conversion.

I'm curious how 20 bit changes anything if human hearing doesn't have that level of dynamic range. As I understand it, 18 bits is the most you can expect from the best ears and best equipment, and that's assuming the equipment is good, and that's not cheap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GordonComstock

Yup. the mic, the pre, the desk, the headstack, the tape formulation, the transport, the playback compensation, the amp, and the speakers to name a few things that adulterate the original signal in the "analog" world of reproduction (and we haven't even gotten to the lathe).

Yes, different kinds of losses. At least with sampling, you can inexpensively cut your losses along most of the rest of the chain, up until the output DAC, then there are conversion & amplification losses, and the limitations of the speakers, environment and ears.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gxcad

Blind tests have in the past proven no difference between DVD-Audio and CD. For that matter, the same holds true between 256kbps mp3's and CD's on very expensive and highly respected setups. People who say otherwise need to prove it in a blind test before they go boasting how they are audiophiles and they have superior ears or trained ears that can hear the difference.

Having said that, yes, TECHNICALLY, 24 bit 96khz audio SHOULD produce better quality audio. We certainly won't be able to hear it though.

Same goes for SACD - all marketing.

Maybe the difference is that the SACD / DVD-Audio releases don't employ the same dynamic range compression that is on the CD/MP3/etc? I think that could explain a lot.

For what you get (a compressed digital file with no physical product), the prices were already way too high. The price needs to get progressively lower over time if the recording industry really wants to fend off piracy.

iTunes already had a somewhat limited selection, this morning it has dropped by about 15% by removing all the tracks that the studios were not willing to offer DRM free. I listen to a lot of J-pop right now for instance and some of the biggest groups have literally hundreds of albums out but what's available in iTunes? Two or three at most, and half of those disappeared last night because they are "imports" in the eyes of studio execs who are still living in the 60's.

Curiously though, I'd like to know where the heck all the $.69 tracks are???

I looked up a dozen or two groups from my distant youth in the 70's and about ten from the 1960's and they are all $.99 not $.69. If 45 year old tracks by people who are mostly dead now recorded at studios that no longer exist and owned by people who weren't alive when they were recorded are not $.69 tracks what are?

Just for laughs look up "Glenn Miller" (he died almost 75 years ago).125 tracks, all of them $.99.

Because he's so "current" right?

Just set up a iTunes account in Japan. Go to Jlist for directions on how to do this. You can get all the Jpop you want. Or just import from yesasia.com

They come from a loss-less sample and that's it. Compressing the file for CDs inherently causes loss. It does the same thing even at higher bitrates. Stop trying to justify your error and just move on. Physical media is dead one way or another so this entire argument is ultimately irrelevant.

Sample and bit rate conversion is different from compression.
Audio files are not compressed before burning to a traditional CD, they are sample and bit rate converted if they were mastered at anything other than 16/44.

Please explain how this is a bad idea? Unless you are overly concerned about willing your CDs to your kids, how is renting music a bad idea? You rent movies and TV via cable.

Maybe I'm an idealist but I don't see music, or art in general as transitory. Movies because of their length and the specificity of the way we experience them (sorry, I don't really have better words to describe it) are not something I want to experience over and over again on a regular basis.

Music on the other hand, for me at least, is permanent. Songs only last a few minutes and you experience them on a more gut level. I have music I've been listening to for 40 years now (since childhood). Although I probably don't listen to the first batch of "favorites" from my life as often as I do the more recent ones, I still listen to them. I enjoy them in a different way depending on the moment because good music is a bit ambiguous and open ended. The same song can seem very different depending on my mood or the circumstances I'm listening in. You can revisit the same piece over and over again and experience it differently each time. I only tend to buy music (and listen to music) that fits in that category. Any music I don't don't want to "live" with is not really music I want to spend my time with.

For me, renting music just doesn't fit with how I personally enjoy it. I'm not saying that's the way it is for anyone else, or should be. However, if your asking why, for some, renting music vs. having it permanently is not a good thing, well, there it is.

For me, renting music just doesn't fit with how I personally enjoy it. I'm not saying that's the way it is for anyone else, or should be. However, if your asking why, for some, renting music vs. having it permanently is not a good thing, well, there it is.

The way the package is with the Zune system sounds very interesting though, and I think it would be conducive with your desires. Each month you get to legally sample any song in the catalog to see if you like anything that you haven't listened to before, and you can pick 10 a month that you can keep forever, so it's not as if you're losing your library when you cancel. It's too bad that system is tied to the Zune.

The way the package is with the Zune system sounds very interesting though, and I think it would be conducive with your desires. Each month you get to legally sample any song in the catalog to see if you like anything that you haven't listened to before, and you can pick 10 a month that you can keep forever, so it's not as if you're losing your library when you cancel. It's too bad that system is tied to the Zune.

Maybe I should revisit the idea. Trying new music with "an option to own" is a good idea. If they would allow you to choose any 10 songs OR any album, that would be better (maybe with a discount for any songs over 10 on an album if an album has more than 10 songs—think "best of").

One of the challenges I have, not being a teen ager with access to a world of like-minded people to learn about new music, is discovering new music that isn't the flash in the pan pop crap on the radio. I've found people as varied as Bon Iver to Rob Zombie that fit with music that I want to to keep.

However, I am tied to the Apple model (OS, computer, ipod, stereo equipment car and home that's compatible) unless itunes has a less artist specific plan for a "seasonal pass" then the one they're experimenting with now (as I understand it) it's doesn't appeal to me and zune has a very hard sell to get me to switch.

That's an understatement. I've checked about 50 artists in my music library, ranging from the 1930s to the 1990s. In the thousand-plus results from those searches, I haven't found anything under 99 cents.

I never said they loved Amazon, but they hated Steve Jobs and Apple. Sometimes things are simply done for personal reasons. Time will tell. In my part of the world it is night so tomorrow when I wake up we will see if suddenly Amazon tunes are now higher priced.

Either way, I could not care less. If a song is $1.69 or $10.69, or $169.00 and I want it, I will simply buy it. Luckily I can usually afford what I want to purchase. It is about the record companies pushing crap music (BEP's new song) on us and wanting consumers to pay a premium for it. It was like when Jay-Z got pissed at iTunes and decided to pull his American Gangster trax. Who suffered? He did. Then Jermaine the Midget Dupree actually had the gall to call consumers stupid and say that we should be thankful for the music they make. What a bunch of arrogant effers.

Well, guess what? it already started. To be fair, I expected Amazon to raise the price within a year not today!!

I don't think Amazon "followed Apple into the fray" as much as they were both dragged into it at gun point against their will.

Maybe I'm reading to much into this, but it seems like capitalism is experiencing some much needed growing pains of late. Sellers of everything from mortgage backed derivatives, to union demanded pension plans, to golden parachutes for failed billionaire CEOs are hitting the wall. Now, I'm guessing, it will be the music industry's turn (maybe Apple too).

I remember from the one econ class I had in college that a 6% profit margin for retailers was a good general target. Now every one who sells something wants to recreate the magical, illogical success of AOL by winning the lottery and getting the masses to let you have huge, gigantic profit margins that don't jive with what the consumer will bare over the long term once the delirium of new and cool wares off.

Maybe our current economic woes are a good thing. Fear of job loss and stagnant annual income may mean the consumer in the first world will simply have to do without the niceties of modernity in favor of food and shelter, thereby forcing modern digital robber barons into offering good products driven by realistic consumer demand at profit margins derived from product merit rather than a fat and happy consumer populous lusting after convenience and a self-indulgent desire for immediate gratification (people like meuntil now).

If you want a $1.29 song, why not throw it in a 'wish list' until it's not as popular and goes back down to 99 cents before buying (assume any price will go down when the songs go down in popularity...)

I don't think Amazon "followed Apple into the fray" as much as they were both dragged into it at gun point against their will.

If you follow my post you will see that that was my point. The record labels gave Amazon an advantage just to force Apple into accepting their terms regarding DRM free music. Now they don't need Amazon anymore and can force them into accepting new terms and pricing.

If you follow my post you will see that that was my point. The record labels gave Amazon an advantage just to force Apple into accepting their terms regarding DRM free music. Now they don't need Amazon anymore and can force them into accepting new terms and pricing.

I haven't read every post, but if that's what you said, than I say, "preach it brotha (or sista). Can I get an "Amen!"

Well, guess what? it already started. To be fair, I expected Amazon to raise the price within a year not today!!

Not just Amazon, Walmart's music store started their variable pricing with slightly better prices ranging from 64¢ to $1.24. To me, the most surprising part of all this is that Walmart still has an online music store. I thought that ended long ago.

Wow. It was sort of ironic when I said I would go to bed and wake up and see what has happened. I wonder if Amazon was reading this thread. Anyway, I guess the crap will continue to hit the fan until people tell the record companies via a boycott that they are not going to take it anymore. $1.29 for just a digital file. No pictures, no lyrics, no digital book. Just a song. They are insane.

I haven't found anything yet for $0.69 ... This reminds me of when you deal with a bank - takes you no time at all to take money out of the account, but when money gets credited back or deposited, it takes 5 - 10 business days. Took no time at all to roll out all of the $1.29 tracks, but shit, those $0.69 tracks will just have to wait awhile.

It should be a crime to charge $1.29 PER TRACK on a band's new album that has been irrelevant to music for nearly a decade ... yes, I'm looking at you, U2... I guess what they meant by "lowering the price of older tracks" meant they just wouldn't raise really old, popular songs by 30%. Thank you record labels - I bow in appreciation of your benevolence.

Minute??? How about the difference of taking off earmuffs. Would you call that minute?
I've had many people come over who were complete skeptics, only to leave complete believers.
Mind you, this is on an audiophile system:
Paradigm Studio 100's V.3 speakers
Bi-wired with 14/16 gauge Ultralink cables
Marantz CD player with SACD Grade Cirrus Logic CS4392 DAC
Yamaha high current HTR 5760 receiver
Airport express and gold plated connections on everything
And most importantly... walls covered with sound panels.

This is a low/mid range system as far as audiophile systems go. Sub $6000.
On a system this precise thou, nuances become mountains. And of the 15 - 20 people that have come and auditioned the system expecting to hear minute detail changes, were completely blown away from the first 5 seconds of listening. Literally, it's like taking off earmuffs.

I also have a $350 JVC micro system with exceptional sound. The difference between 320 AAC and CD is, well... nothing.

This whole argument is ridiculous. It's no different then someone with a standard TV watching a VHS cassette, looking at an HD 1080p Plasma playing a blue-ray movie and saying... "I don't see any difference... the human eye can only see so many colors, HD is a placebo".

The only difference I guess is that it's tougher to do a 'blind' comparison of TV resolution.

Dude... so your play your CD's on a high-end SACD-player with a super DAC, and then compare that to an MP3 you stream through your AirPort Express??? Correct me if I'm worng, but the Airport expres decodes the recieved binary data and then puts that analog signal on its line-out, which you then plug into your amp. Youexpect the DAC of your AirPort Express to be of the same level as your Marantz?

The only fair comparison would be if your CD player supported MP3 files, then the only true variable would be the file itself.

Um.... your not converting the sample rate; you're reducing the bit depth from 24 to 16 (and I hope you're dithering while you're at it).

My mistake... I said that backwards. You're absolutely right, my sample rate remains 44.1k so there is not conversion necessary there. As you say, I am converting bit depth.

Quote:

Listen to YouTube with a good pair of full sized, cup around the ear, headphones. A lot will be revealed. On another note: I've rented cars with satellite radio and can't believe how bad that sounds. Lower bit rate compression is the bane of good audio.

I completely agree that youtube compression and some digital radio does sound rotten. Although, I still find iTunes Plus (256 kbps AAC) to be a very good compression format in terms of maintaining sonic fidelity while reducing its file size. IMO, it's the best size/quality ratio that Apple could've chosen.

Maybe I should revisit the idea. Trying new music with "an option to own" is a good idea. If they would allow you to choose any 10 songs OR any album, that would be better (maybe with a discount for any songs over 10 on an album if an album has more than 10 songsthink "best of").

One of the challenges I have, not being a teen ager with access to a world of like-minded people to learn about new music, is discovering new music that isn't the flash in the pan pop crap on the radio. I've found people as varied as Bon Iver to Rob Zombie that fit with music that I want to to keep.

However, I am tied to the Apple model (OS, computer, ipod, stereo equipment car and home that's compatible) unless itunes has a less artist specific plan for a "seasonal pass" then the one they're experimenting with now (as I understand it) it's doesn't appeal to me and zune has a very hard sell to get me to switch.

You should try out Pandora.com. By putting in an artist or group of artists you like, it automatically picks out other similar music. You can further define what music you're looking for by either giving each song a 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down' or by adding additional artists or songs to the station.

I just keep track of the songs I like and then download them with the Zune Pass. The zune pass also recommends songs each week based on what you listened to recently but the results aren't as good.

Dude... so your play your CD's on a high-end SACD-player with a super DAC, and then compare that to an MP3 you stream through your AirPort Express??? Correct me if I'm worng, but the Airport expres decodes the recieved binary data and then puts that analog signal on its line-out, which you then plug into your amp. Youexpect the DAC of your AirPort Express to be of the same level as your Marantz?

The only fair comparison would be if your CD player supported MP3 files, then the only true variable would be the file itself.

He could do a great comparison with exactly the equipment he has. RIP a CD into iTunes with no Compression (Apple Lossless or AIFF), then convert a copy into any other formats you are interested in comparing it to. Burn these files to a CD formatted CDR and pop them in the CD player. All the compression artifacts will have been faithfully reproduced in the LOSSLESS CD. He could sit around all day pondering the subtleties of his equipment and how it exposes the nastiness of compression.

Personally, I don't have time for that kind of bullshit. Its springtime and I'd rather take a bikeride or just listen to some music and rock out!

Wow. It was sort of ironic when I said I would go to bed and wake up and see what has happened. I wonder if Amazon was reading this thread. Anyway, I guess the crap will continue to hit the fan until people tell the record companies via a boycott that they are not going to take it anymore. $1.29 for just a digital file. No pictures, no lyrics, no digital book. Just a song. They are insane.

Yeah, that's why Amazon is where they are today: they prowl random bulletin boards for ideas and immediately turn them into action. I assume you were joking.

Anyway, now 60% of the messages here are irrelevant since the "Curse you Apple, I'm going to Amazon!" option to save 30c was never really an option.

Could someone, at the Q2 2009 financial results conference call, ask them what has happened to this statement from SJ:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

"[B]ased on what the music labels charge Apple, songs on iTunes will be available at one of three price points -- 69 cents, 99 cents and $1.29 -- with many more songs priced at 69 cents than $1.29," said Apple chief executive Steve Jobs.

Unfortunately I don't hold any stock in Apple, but it would be interesting to hear their explanation for this statement, that is not reflected by their own iTS.

Wow. It was sort of ironic when I said I would go to bed and wake up and see what has happened. I wonder if Amazon was reading this thread. Anyway, I guess the crap will continue to hit the fan until people tell the record companies via a boycott that they are not going to take it anymore. $1.29 for just a digital file. No pictures, no lyrics, no digital book. Just a song. They are insane.

You haven't gotten something from the record companies with artwork and real packaging for $1.29 since before I was born, and I'm not that young! I mean, I don't like paying more either, but what exactly do you expect for $1.29? And you do get a picture.

Get a grip, dude. If you really want the packaging, used CDs are the way to go.

$15.00 a month buys 1 CD with 15 tracks (being generous)
This is 9000 songs purchased over 50 years (600 CDs)
This is what you would get buying the music.

$15.00 to rent (and keep 10 a month). This doesn't have to Zune.
UNLIMITED music to listen to as long as you have the HDD space for 50 years.
Also, you get to keep 6000 songs (400 CDs).

Please explain how this is a bad idea? Unless you are overly concerned about willing your CDs to your kids, how is renting music a bad idea? You rent movies and TV via cable.

You are missing the point that the day ZuneStore goes the way of all the other subscriptions services, you have nothing. When Microsoft kills off the ZuneStore like they did PlaysForSure, you have nothing. When you buy a new PMP, you have nothing. Well, not nothing but you did get those 10 or 15 tracks Papa Ballmer gave you for your "allowance". Assuming you wanted what they were peddling...

If you like subscription music, you'll probably love the new Sansa slotRadio, you don't even need to bother downloading the songs, as Sansa and Billboard have convieniently picked your music for you.

99 cent songs on iTunes arrived three years ago, so that would be 10% annually, not 30%. And what makes you think we currently have deflation?

Maybe it depends on the country. The US store opened six years ago this month, so that would be a 5% without figuring in any compounding.

And that's not counting the savings from not having to buy the whole album to buy just the songs you want, which was the model before there were internet media sales. The $1.29 rate for the most popular tracks really isn't a bad price, and I recall iTune's album pricing is still the same. I don't buy much music, so I'm not going to complain about the extra $0.30.

Yeah, I realize a lot of people are hurting lately, but whether the price is $0.99 or $1.29 shouldn't matter much because they probably won't be spending a lot on what is really a luxury rather than necessities such as food and housing.

I don't mind paying more for higher quality music and no DRM. I remember when iTunes Plus first came to the UK and prices were higher. I certainly paid the price then just to make a statement on how I wanted my music.

And when I feel the price is too high? I go onto Spotify and stream tracks for free.

Yes, but still using MP3 @ 256. While Apple is AAC @ 256. From what I understand, AAC is a superior codec to MP3. Is that correct?

AAC is generally superior, but at high bit rates, the difference is pretty small with modern encoders, because MP3 encoders have been improving too. Also, every time I check, iTunes is constant bit rate, for every unit in time, a certain number of bits is used, regardless of whether it's a simple or complex part of the track. Amazon uses variable bit rate, allocating the bits in the part of the track it is most needed. That closes most of the remaining gap.